33 
zygapophyses of cervical vertebrae, ribs, fragments of teeth, broken ossified 
tendons and impressions of the integument”, be identified with one or 
another of the described hadrosaurian genera from the Belly River form- 
ation? The possibility of these remains belonging to a crested form of the 
Hadrosauridae has been fully discussed, and I believe it to be most improb- 
able. There remain only the non-crested or flat-headed members of the sub- 
family Hadrosaurinse to be considered. In this group is found only one 
genus, Gryposaurus, that occurs in the Belly River formation. 
This genus, described by Lambe 1 in 1914, is considered by Brown 2 to 
be congeneric with Kritosaurus, a point of view in which he has been 
followed by Gilmore 3 and Parks 4 . Certainly generic distinctions have 
not yet been pointed out, and Kritosaurus having priority by several years, 
that generic name will be used. At this time three species, Kritosaurus 
navajovius Brown, K. notabilis (Lambe), and K. incurvimanus Parks, are 
recognized as pertaining to this genus. 
We are now concerned with the two last-named species since the type 
of K. navajovius Brown comes from the distant Ojo Alamo formation in 
New Mexico. The specific distinctness of K. incurvimanus from K. nota- 
bilis appears to rest upon a very insecure foundation and possibly future 
discoveries may show them to be cospecific. Parks in the above cited 
publication (1920, p. 34) has called attention to the close similarities of the 
humeri of the types of Stephanosaurus and Kritosaurus , regarding which 
he says: “The figure given by Lambe for the humerus of Stephanosaurus 
marginatus might serve to illustrate the present species except for some 
details of measurement”. Likewise the radius and ulna of Stephanosaurus 
marginatus, except for their slightly larger size, appear indistinguishable 
from those of K. incurvimanus. In the Tight of our present knowledge of 
the Belly River fauna there appears no reason why Stephanosaurus and 
Kritosaurus should not be considered congeneric, and since Kritosaurus 
(1910) has priority, Stephanosaurus (1914) becomes a synonym. 
Could it be shown that Lambe’s type of marginatus is cospecific with 
either K. notabilis (Lambe) or K. incurvimanus Parks it would as a matter 
of course supersede either species name, over which it has clear priority. 
Its larger size would suggest affinities with the former species rather than 
with K. incurvimanus. At present, however, I see no way to definitely 
determine this point, and while awaiting preparation of the remainder of 
the type materials of Kritosaurus notabilis (Lambe), it appears best to retain 
the name as a distinct species to be called Kritosaurus marginatus (Lambe). 
It having now been shown that Stephanosaurus is invalid, the sub- 
family name Stephanosaurinae disappears, for according to nomenclatural 
usage a family or sub-family name must be derived from an included genus. 
Parks has proposed the sub-family name Lambeosaurinae to replace it. 
6 See University of Toronto Studies, No. 15, 1923, p. 8.) 
If correct in the preceding deductions the two skulls referred by 
Lambe to Stephanosaurus are now without generic and specific designation. 
A name, however, has been given them by Prof. W. A. Parks of the Uni- 
versity of Toronto from whom it was learned shortly before the completion 
^Ottawa Naturalist, vol. 27, 1914, pp. 145-149, PI. XVIII. 
•Bull. Geol. Soc. Am., vol. 25, Sept., 1914, p. 380. 
*Prof. Paper 98 Q, U. S. Geol. Surv., 1916, p. 283. 
‘University of Toronto Studies, No. 11, 1920, p. 8. 
